IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7609/2013 BETWEEN:
1. Sahul Hameed Aged about 35 years, S/o Hasanabba U.K.
K.H. Compound, Kanyadi Village, Permanu post, Keltaje, Belthangady- 574 211.
2. Hasanabba Aged about 60 years K.H. Compound, Kanyadi Village, Permanu post, Keltaje, Belthangady- 574 211.
3. Avamma W/o Hasanabba, Aged about 50 years, K.H. Compound, Kanyadi Village, Permanu post, Keltaje, Belthangady- 574 211.
4. Mohammed Ali, S/o Hasanabba, Aged about 36 years, K.H. Compound, Kanyadi Village, Permanu post, Keltaje, Belthangady- 574 211.
5. Razia W/o Elyan, D/o Hasanabba, Aged about 30 years, K.H. Compound, Kanyadi Village, Permanu post, Keltaje, Belthangady- 574 211.
6. Taslima, W/o Mohammed Ali, Aged about 24 years, R/at K.H. Compound, Kanyadi Village, Permanu post, Keltaje, Belthangady- 574 211. …Petitioners (By Sri. Karunakara. P, Advocate) AND:
Shabnum D/o B. Abbas Kolakadan House, Kuvettu village, Guruvayanakere Post, Badyar, Belthangady Taluk, D.K. District – 574 211. ... Respondent (Respondent Served & Unrepresented) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in DVP No.13/2012 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC., Belthangady under Section 37 (2) (c) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and etc.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them in DVP No.13/2012 on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC., Belthangady under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“the Act”, for short).
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and perused the record. Respondent and her counsel are absent.
3. Respondent herein filed a domestic incident report under Section 37 (2) (c) of the Act seeking protection order under Section 18, residence order under Section 19, monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act. According to the complainant/respondent, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and sexual violence by the petitioners. There are also allegations that at the time of marriage, petitioners herein received 50 sovereigns of gold from the parents of the respondent and after the marriage, disposed off the said ornaments despite protest of the respondent and further took mahar gold and engagement ring from the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for petitioners submits that the allegations made against the petitioners are manifestly false. The respondent hardly lived for 3 – 4 months in the matrimonial house. There was no occasion for the petitioners to subject her to cruelty or harassment. The allegations made in the complaint are false and baseless. The first petitioner has issued reply to the notice issued by the respondent through Karavali Mahila Jagruthi Vedhike. Further, relying on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Menakuru Renuka & Ors. V. Menakuru Mona Reddy & Anr. reported in 2009 CRL.L.J. (NOC) 819 the learned counsel would submit that in view of Section 2 (q) of the Act, respondent means only “adult male members”. Therefore, prosecution of female members of petitioners family is abuse of process of court and on this ground the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
5. On going through the domestic incident report submitted by the respondent, it is seen that serious allegations are made against the petitioners in support of the protection order, residence order, monetary relief claimed by the respondent. At this juncture, this court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot dismiss these allegations as false and baseless. The contentions urged by the petitioners are disputed question of facts which requires to be considered by the learned Magistrate along with the reports of CDPO.
6. Having regard to nature of allegations leveled against the petitioners, in my view, the allegation made against petitioners cannot be said to be false and baseless. As a result, petitioners are not entitled for any relief under Section 482 of the Code.
7. Insofar as legal contention urged by the petitioners that a woman member of the family of the petitioners cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of the Act is concerned, proviso to Section 2 (q) provides that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband, or the male partner. Therefore, at this juncture, even the said contention cannot be accepted.
8. Consequently, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Np/-
Sd/- JUDGE